Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Apr 2010 11:50 UTC
Legal A major setback for those that claim piracy is having an adverse affect on the US economy: the US Government Accountability Office, who was tasked with reviewing the efforts to find out what, if any, impact piracy has on the US economy, has concluded that all of these studies - all of them - are bogus. Better yet - the GAO even goes as far as to say that piracy may have a positive effect on the economy.
Thread beginning with comment 418941
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Wed 14th Apr 2010 12:31 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Are you actually going to try and argue now that pirating is positive? Is this the position of OSNews, that pirating is good and that everyone should take part?

You really need to think through these positions more thoroughly.

© 1997-2010 OSNews LLC. All Rights Reserved. OSNews and the OSNews logo are trademarks of OSNews.
Source Code © 2007-2010, Adam Scheinberg, except where noted
Reader comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for them in any way.
All trademarks, icons, and logos shown or mentioned in this web site are the property of their respective owners.
OSNews.com uses icons from the Tango Project and FamFamFam. jQuery © 2008 John Resig
Reproduction of OSNews stories is permitted only with explicit authorization from OSNews. Reproductions must be properly credited.


Thom, please remove this from the bottom of your website here, I don't want to make you come off as a hypocrite now.

Reply Score: -17

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 14th Apr 2010 12:42 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you actually going to try and argue now that pirating is positive?


I'm arguing that the situation is not as clear cut as big content want you to believe. There's no one-on-one conversion, and piracy may indeed have both positive and negative effects. To pretend that the effect is ALWAYS negative and STRICTLY negative is shortsighted. For instance, cinema visits have been going up considerably year after year in The Netherlands, despite downloading NOT being illegal here. Care to explain?

Is this the position of OSNews, that pirating is good and that everyone should take part?


I'm not "OSNews" - I'm one member of the team with my own opinion, and those may not be shared by other team members. Also, you sound a lot like one of our other readers who, just because I, like so many others, question the validity of big content's claims, am somehow saying that everyone should always pirate everything. It's Bush-thinking, and doesn't make you look particularly bright.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by bert64 on Wed 14th Apr 2010 12:49 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

What's interesting is that China shows that piracy is actually positive for consumers...

China gets DRM-free music from Nokia, while the rest of the world is saddled with an onerous DRM scheme... Why? because piracy is higher in china and so the legitimate suppliers actually have to offer a better product rather than trying to screw their paying customers with DRM.

If DRM was really about piracy, then they would have used an even more invasive form of it in china.

Reply Parent Score: 18

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by alexandru_lz on Wed 14th Apr 2010 12:43 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

I don't think anyone goes as far as saying that pirating is the best thing and we should just drop legal software -- just that some of the stuff RIAA & co. have been saying is wrong. And really, a couple of them are obvious, even without a government-sponsored study.

For instance, I totally challenge the numbers that they are putting forward as losses due to piracy. The way they do it is multiply the number of pirated copies by the sales price, which is irrelevant because many of those who got the pirated product did not have the intention of buying a legal copy in the first place, and if a pirated copy wouldn't have been available, they wouldn't have bought the legal copy anyway.

These claims also neglect the issue of availability. Back in the early '90s I had a bunch of tape-recorded Deep Purple albums that were obviously not legitimate, not because I was a heartless pirate but because legal copies were not available in my country. Being the fan that I am I bought the albums as soon as they were available here, but in the years that passed until that the tapes had probably become thinner by as much as 1/10 mm :-D.

These may seem irrelevant to the final moral issue (i.e. regardless of these, piracy is still wrong), but it's not irrelevant to those who go to court on half-assed charges, nor when it comes to the ridiculous loss figures presented by those who sue, based on which the court decides the fines of those who are sued.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 14th Apr 2010 13:01 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom, please remove this from the bottom of your website here, I don't want to make you come off as a hypocrite now.


And as for this insipid troll, before you crucify us, why don't you contact us about how we handle copyright? For instance, if you want to translate something from OSNews into another language and puslish it yourself (which happens on a regular basis) we have never given anyone any problems - state clearly it's our article as well as the original author, and it's fine by us.

We have also encountered over the years several websites who do, indeed, republish our content without permission. Have we threatened with litigation? Have we killed them? No - we simply asked them to remove the content, or to be sure to be nice and employ fair use (i.e., the same way we do: use selective quotations from the article, and properly attribute everything).

This kind of trolling is nonsensical, because here at OSNews, we are actually quite relaxed when it comes to "enforcing" the copyright we own over our content, because we want people to read out stuff. If that means translations and such, we're fine with it. I dare you to contact big content and ask to translate or make derivative works from their stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by jack_perry on Wed 14th Apr 2010 14:31 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

The question isn't trolling, nor is it nonsensical. What if those websites ignored you, and continued to present your "exclusive articles" (say) as their own product? What would you do then? Sit back and take it?

If so, is it because you were really okay with that behavior? or because you don't have the money for legal action?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by Budd on Wed 14th Apr 2010 14:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

We have also encountered over the years several websites who do, indeed, republish our content without permission. Have we threatened with litigation? Have we killed them? No - we simply asked them to remove the content, or to be sure to be nice and employ fair use (i.e., the same way we do: use selective quotations from the article, and properly attribute everything).

Your articles except the so called podcast and the ocasional brain fart come 90% from other sites (slashdot,arstechnica,register etc). In fact, there's almost nothing new on this site one didn't already read alread on the said above tech sites. Don't fool yourself, OSN is not anymore the OSN it was 5 years ago.And not in the good way,unfortunately.

Edited 2010-04-14 14:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by boldingd on Wed 14th Apr 2010 16:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

While I don't doubt your intentions, I must point out, if you really feel that way, you could put it in your license. There are various copyleft licenses for content you could use (some of which still require proper source attribution). Or you could just put a clause in your license that explicitly blesses translations and duly-attributed excerpts. That wouldn't invalidate your copyright, and it might stop your little friend there from gratuitously copying the copyright notice from the bottom of the page into a thread-comment every time copyright comes up. ;)

Edit: typo

Edited 2010-04-14 16:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by Laurence on Wed 14th Apr 2010 13:09 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Are you actually going to try and argue now that pirating is positive? Is this the position of OSNews, that pirating is good and that everyone should take part?

You really need to think through these positions more thoroughly.


You're missing the point.
Piracy / copyright isn't a blank and white / good and evil debate like the media industries like to play out.
It's a complex series of individual issues - most of which resolve in the "grey area".


In some cases, piracy /does/ have a positive impact:
* exposure for smaller / niche music that don't get radio play

* consumer interest, "try before you buy". (you can listen to an album for free then buy it if you like it rather than wasting money on sh*t music you'll regret buying)

* consumer interest, DRMless media and media centres (you can have your CDs and DVDs stored on a media server and watch them in any room, the way you choose and on the hardware you choose rather than being locked into the limitations set up corporate fatcats.

* a thriving underground / bootlegging scene (dance music (drum and bass, jungle, house, hardhouse, etc) wouldn't exist if it wasn't for unauthorised sampling and bootlegging. In fact, the classic jungle breaks is a direct rip of a B-side on an Amen Brothers single).


Sure, there will be pirates that don't pay back into the scene. People that will just take advantage of the tools available to download free content and abuse them. However most people like that will always do so regardless of the technology (they will record music off the radio instead of buying singles. They will copy a mates CD or DVD. and so on.). People like that aren't new since the internet age, they've always existed and always will.


The problem is copyright laws are bent too far towards the copyright holders. Rather than protecting their work, it harms the innocent consumers.
For example, here in the UK it's technically illegal for me to play a CD when I host BBQs during the summer as it's considered a public performance and as such I should have a PRS license. The fact that it's just me and a few mates at MY house playing a CD I legally purchased is completely irrelevant.
Another example is that copying up my CDs, cassettes and vinyl to my computer is also illegal. IIRC the US copyright law allows for back ups for music, but the UK does not. So all those people with MP3 players and music they didn't legally download, they're breaking the law regardless of whether they owned the original CD or not.


The whole law surrounding digital media and corporate debates about new legislation is madness. Rather than addressing the issues - promoting the good and providing incentives to drive business away from the bad - everyone with the power for change seems to be forcing consumers into 20th Century markets.

It's complete madness - but then who needs to be brave and redesign your business model when you can pay people off to pass laws to force people to buy your products (and buy them repeatedly in some cases due to technology incompatibilities and/or DRM)

[edit]

It's a pity you've been modded down as, despite the slightly offensive tone to your post, it has sparked the right kind of debate.

Edited 2010-04-14 13:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by nt_jerkface on Wed 14th Apr 2010 17:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Piracy / copyright isn't a blank and white / good and evil debate like the media industries like to play out.
It's a complex series of individual issues - most of which resolve in the "grey area".


There's nothing morally gray about taking the work others without compensation.



* exposure for smaller / niche music that don't get radio play


Artists can already give samples or singles for marketing purposes. Piracy is not something that artists support. They can already give their music away for free under the current system. Allowing piracy just takes away a method of payment for them.

consumer interest, "try before you buy". (you can listen to an album for free then buy it if you like it rather than wasting money on sh*t music you'll regret buying)


The vast majority of people that pirate do not purchase the content at a later date. This can be seen by piracy ratios of digital goods.


Sure, there will be pirates that don't pay back into the scene.


The vast majority of pirates are people that simply don't want to pay.


It's complete madness - but then who needs to be brave and redesign your business model when you can pay people off to pass laws to force people to buy your products (and buy them repeatedly in some cases due to technology incompatibilities and/or DRM)


No the madness is that some areas of software like pc gaming have piracy rates of around 90% and yet people like you want to rationalize piracy and change the laws to make piracy less of a legal risk even though the people currently pirating are under no fear of legal action.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by rcsteiner on Wed 14th Apr 2010 14:57 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Over the past 30 years, I've usually obtained illegal copies of software for one purpose: evaluation.

If I think a program is worthwhile after using it a while, I generally purchase it if the copyright holder requires a purchase. That includes shareware as well as more traditional software packages, though shareware programs are legally available for evaluation.

If I don't like the program after a while, it gets removed from my systems.

This probably results in a net gain for the makes of such software, since I would probably not purchase ANY of those programs sight unseen.

I can think of several programs I've done this with: Visio 4, Hummingbird Exceed for OS/2, Paragon Software's Hard Disk Manager, Process Commander, etc. I'm a legal licensed user of them now, but for a while I was not.

Edited 2010-04-14 15:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ssa2204
by Tuishimi on Wed 14th Apr 2010 20:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by ssa2204"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

This is why I like "try before you buy"-ware. Gives you a chance to feel out the product.

Maybe someone should invent a time-released form of DRM. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssa2204
by Cromat on Thu 15th Apr 2010 15:18 in reply to "Comment by ssa2204"
Cromat Member since:
2009-12-15

I think the point about piracy being a good thing is because of the economy. I would argue that when the economy is good people are more inclined to just go out and buy a dvd/blue-ray or a music cd and if they don't like it they discard it. Now since everyone is more aware of the economy they will most likely pirate the movies or music first and then make a decision to buy it if they like it enough. This also would tend to increase sales, because those that were previously hesitant and didn't buy even when the economy was good now are pirating first and then purchasing. Not to say this is right, because we do still have copyright laws, however, as consumers in a skeptical times, the pirating first and then purchase, makes us more confident that we are spending the money we do have on a product or entertainment we will enjoy.


Just my 2 cents ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1